PDA

View Full Version : aerobic exercise as well? for general health


nm
October 1st 04, 01:44 AM
hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times a
week.....do u think that this is enough for my general health...should i
be doing some aerobic stuff a well????

Kromagnon
October 1st 04, 07:20 AM
nm wrote:
> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times
a
> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general
> health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a well????

Yes.

20 minutes of HIIT 3 times/week OR 30 minutes of aerobics 3
times/week with your heart rate at around 70% for your age. OR
you can mix the two. Do the cardio after your weights.


K

Todd Walker
October 1st 04, 03:51 PM
nm > wrote in message >...
> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times a
> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general health...should i
> be doing some aerobic stuff a well????

Yes...of course. How else will you work your heart? Just make sure you
eat enough so you don't burn muscle.

Helgi Briem
October 1st 04, 05:22 PM
On 1 Oct 2004 07:51:54 -0700, (Todd Walker) wrote:

>nm > wrote in message >...
>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times a
>> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general health...should i
>> be doing some aerobic stuff a well????
>
>Yes...of course. How else will you work your heart? Just make sure you
>eat enough so you don't burn muscle.

You think weightlifting doesn't work the heart?!?!

Somebody must have forgotten to tell mine because
my HR goes way up when weightlifting, especially
when I deadlift.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

"Don't worry about it, son. God is just messing with your head."

Neil Gendzwill
October 1st 04, 05:31 PM
Helgi Briem wrote:

> You think weightlifting doesn't work the heart?!?!
>
> Somebody must have forgotten to tell mine because
> my HR goes way up when weightlifting, especially
> when I deadlift.

Not the same as I understand it - where's that endurance weenie when you
need him?

Helgi Briem
October 1st 04, 06:03 PM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:31:24 -0600, Neil Gendzwill
> wrote:

>Helgi Briem wrote:
>
>> You think weightlifting doesn't work the heart?!?!
>>
>> Somebody must have forgotten to tell mine because
>> my HR goes way up when weightlifting, especially
>> when I deadlift.
>
>Not the same as I understand it - where's that endurance
>weenie when you need him?

Probably out skating. Wearing leotards.

But my point remains. 90% of the health benefits
of exercise are realised by doing 30 minutes of
moderate exercise 3 times a week. Any extra
endurance work is largely wasted, heart-health wise.

Not that there aren't other benefits of endurance, mind.

Or strength, for that matter.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

"Don't worry about it, son. God is just messing with your head."

Neil Gendzwill
October 1st 04, 06:13 PM
Helgi Briem wrote:

> But my point remains. 90% of the health benefits
> of exercise are realised by doing 30 minutes of
> moderate exercise 3 times a week. Any extra
> endurance work is largely wasted, heart-health wise.

I'd believe that minimum necessary health benefits are accomplished by
that. Most people here seem to be reaching beyond the minimum.

> Not that there aren't other benefits of endurance, mind.
>
> Or strength, for that matter.

All I know is that if I just lift, my endurance goes to crap. I need to
run or something, so I split my noon hours between running and lifting.
I'm training to improve performance in other sports - the health thing
is a really nice side benefit but I was already pretty healthy before I
started cross-training.

Neil

billydee
October 1st 04, 06:35 PM
nm > wrote in message >...
> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times a
> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general health...should i
> be doing some aerobic stuff a well????

depends -- $1 to Lyle

jr
October 1st 04, 06:49 PM
nm > wrote in message >...
> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times a
> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general health...should i
> be doing some aerobic stuff a well????

no

Larry Hodges
October 1st 04, 08:28 PM
Neil Gendzwill wrote:
> Helgi Briem wrote:
>
>> But my point remains. 90% of the health benefits
>> of exercise are realised by doing 30 minutes of
>> moderate exercise 3 times a week. Any extra
>> endurance work is largely wasted, heart-health wise.
>
> I'd believe that minimum necessary health benefits are accomplished by
> that. Most people here seem to be reaching beyond the minimum.
>
>> Not that there aren't other benefits of endurance, mind.
>>
>> Or strength, for that matter.
>
> All I know is that if I just lift, my endurance goes to crap. I need
> to run or something, so I split my noon hours between running and
> lifting. I'm training to improve performance in other sports - the
> health thing is a really nice side benefit but I was already pretty
> healthy before I started cross-training.
>
> Neil

I used to treadmill run every workout, including weights. That's six days
per week. About four months ago, I stopped the running all together and
just do weights six days per week and some kicking drills twice per week. I
ran two days ago, and have not lost any of my speed or endurance that I can
tell.

However, at least twice per week, I superset my weights. I'll do legs with
a pull day, doing a set of squats, then immediately doing lat pulls for
example, then back for a set of squats with minimal rest between. My heart
rate stays above 130 for the entire time. I've also leaned out over these
last four months better than the same amount of time prior doing all that
cardio. Diet has not changed.

I do kind of miss running. I think I'll add some back in just because I
like it.
--
-Larry

Kromagnon
October 1st 04, 09:47 PM
jr wrote:
> nm > wrote in message
> >...
>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3 times
a
>> week.....do u think that this is enough for my general
>> health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a well????
>
> no

Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.

Wayne S. Hill
October 2nd 04, 12:03 AM
Kromagnon wrote:

> jr wrote:
>> nm > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>> well????
>>
>> no
>
> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.

Please provide references that support this statement.

--
-Wayne

Lee Michaels
October 2nd 04, 12:09 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote

> Kromagnon wrote:
>
> > jr wrote:
> >> nm > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
> >>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
> >>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
> >>> well????
> >>
> >> no
> >
> > Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>
> Please provide references that support this statement.
>

In his heart of heart, he feels ...............,

Oh, did you say REFERENCES???

Never mind.

Kromagnon
October 2nd 04, 12:17 AM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Kromagnon wrote:
>
>> jr wrote:
>>> nm > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>>> well????
>>>
>>> no
>>
>> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>
> Please provide references that support this statement.

No references are required. Just use common sense.

Kromagnon
October 2nd 04, 12:17 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote
>
>> Kromagnon wrote:
>>
>>> jr wrote:
>>>> nm > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>>>> well????
>>>>
>>>> no
>>>
>>> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>>
>> Please provide references that support this statement.
>>
>
> In his heart of heart, he feels ...............,
>
> Oh, did you say REFERENCES???

No son, incorrect. :)
>
> Never mind.

Kromagnon
October 2nd 04, 12:34 AM
Kromagnon wrote:
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> Kromagnon wrote:
>>
>>> jr wrote:
>>>> nm > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>>>> well????
>>>>
>>>> no
>>>
>>> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>>
>> Please provide references that support this statement.
>
> No references are required. Just use common sense.

Oops, did I say "common sense"? LOL

Cardio and weights should be part of every exercise routine.
If you aren't doing any cardio now you will need to start.

K

Lee Michaels
October 2nd 04, 12:46 AM
"Kromagnon" babbled
> Kromagnon wrote:
> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >> Kromagnon wrote:
> >>
> >>> jr wrote:
> >>>> nm > wrote in message
> >>>> >...
> >>>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
> >>>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
> >>>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
> >>>>> well????
> >>>>
> >>>> no
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
> >>
> >> Please provide references that support this statement.
> >
> > No references are required. Just use common sense.
>
> Oops, did I say "common sense"? LOL
>
> Cardio and weights should be part of every exercise routine.
> If you aren't doing any cardio now you will need to start.
>

Please will excuse us, cromagnon man, if we use something slightly more
modern than a caveman's "common sense" for formulating our training
protocols.

Wayne S. Hill
October 2nd 04, 03:22 AM
Kromagnon wrote:

> Kromagnon wrote:
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>> Kromagnon wrote:
>>>> jr wrote:
>>>>> nm > wrote in message
>>>>> >...
>>>>>> hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>>>>> times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>>>>> general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>>>>> well????
>>>>>
>>>>> no
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>>>
>>> Please provide references that support this statement.
>>
>> No references are required. Just use common sense.
>
> Oops, did I say "common sense"? LOL
>
> Cardio and weights should be part of every exercise routine.

Should...

On what do you base this statement? What you call common
sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that a
proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to what is
commonly considered cardio?

> If you aren't doing any cardio now you will need to start.

Or what?

--
-Wayne

spodosaurus
October 2nd 04, 07:35 AM
Kromagnon wrote:
> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
>>Kromagnon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jr wrote:
>>>
>>>>nm > wrote in message
>...
>>>>
>>>>>hey all, i work out heavy weights for an hour about 3
>>>>>times a week.....do u think that this is enough for my
>>>>>general health...should i be doing some aerobic stuff a
>>>>>well????
>>>>
>>>>no
>>>
>>>Sorry, but the correct answer is yes.
>>
>>Please provide references that support this statement.
>
>
> No references are required. Just use common sense.

Common sense is for commoners that win Darwin awards. It's a lucky
coincidence that your news posting handle supports this.


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

DRS
October 2nd 04, 11:35 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message

> Kromagnon wrote:

[...]

>> Cardio and weights should be part of every exercise routine.
>
> Should...
>
> On what do you base this statement? What you call common
> sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that a
> proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
> minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to what is
> commonly considered cardio?

On the face of it the empirical evidence would seem to be against it. You
don't train for cardio intensive activities like long distance running,
swimming or cycling in the power cage, you do it out on the track or in the
swimming pool. If it were otherwise Ronnie Coleman should be a world
champion marathon runner. :-)

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Peter Allen
October 2nd 04, 01:25 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
<snip kromagnon>
> On what do you base this statement? What you call common
> sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that a
> proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
> minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to what is
> commonly considered cardio?

IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends on a lot of
stuff, not just how hard you're working. You can get your heart rate up
quite a bit just by tensing up your muscles for twenty seconds, and neither
of us thinks that's meaningful work. The point is how hard your body has to
work to get enough oxygen into your system and to the muscles - and unless
you do a very, very odd weight program, you will not be putting out as much
power, on average, as you do when doing proper cardio. Therefore your body
will have to move less oxygen around.

For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd have to lift 100kg
once every two seconds to put out 300W (guessing height weight gains).
That's a pretty modest output for cardio work.

But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't have any, but I'm
not that sure you really need cardio work. OTOH, I don't see why people get
so upset at the idea of spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing
cardio.

Peter

Wayne S. Hill
October 3rd 04, 03:24 AM
Peter Allen wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> <snip kromagnon>
>> On what do you base this statement? What you call common
>> sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that a
>> proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
>> minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to what
>> is commonly considered cardio?
>
> IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends
> on a lot of stuff, not just how hard you're working. You can
> get your heart rate up quite a bit just by tensing up your
> muscles for twenty seconds, and neither of us thinks that's
> meaningful work. The point is how hard your body has to work
> to get enough oxygen into your system and to the muscles -
> and unless you do a very, very odd weight program, you will
> not be putting out as much power, on average, as you do when
> doing proper cardio. Therefore your body will have to move
> less oxygen around.

Who says that's the relevant measure? As far I can tell,
clinical studies have shown that health benefits (reduction of
health risks) correlate roughly with duration/elevation of HR in
exercise. The relative effects of cardio and weight training
haven't been elucidated to any meaningful extent.

> For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd
> have to lift 100kg once every two seconds to put out 300W
> (guessing height weight gains). That's a pretty modest
> output for cardio work.
>
> But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't have
> any, but I'm not that sure you really need cardio work.
> OTOH, I don't see why people get so upset at the idea of
> spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing cardio.

You can if you want, but I'd much rather not, and certainly have
no such intention based on the current state of research.

--
-Wayne

elzinator
October 3rd 04, 04:53 AM
On 3 Oct 2004 02:24:12 GMT, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>Peter Allen wrote:
>
>> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> <snip kromagnon>
>>> On what do you base this statement? What you call common
>>> sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that a
>>> proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
>>> minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to what
>>> is commonly considered cardio?
>>
>> IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends
>> on a lot of stuff, not just how hard you're working. You can
>> get your heart rate up quite a bit just by tensing up your
>> muscles for twenty seconds, and neither of us thinks that's
>> meaningful work. The point is how hard your body has to work
>> to get enough oxygen into your system and to the muscles -
>> and unless you do a very, very odd weight program, you will
>> not be putting out as much power, on average, as you do when
>> doing proper cardio. Therefore your body will have to move
>> less oxygen around.
>
>Who says that's the relevant measure? As far I can tell,
>clinical studies have shown that health benefits (reduction of
>health risks) correlate roughly with duration/elevation of HR in
>exercise. The relative effects of cardio and weight training
>haven't been elucidated to any meaningful extent.

Well, yes and no.
Several recent studies have examined the relative effects of aerobic
to anaerobic exercise (cardio and resistance exercise). But there are
several limitations: Generally, the studies compare outcomes in the
context of only one or two parameters. The methodologies (exercise and
intervention vary widely, as well as the subject cohorts. And the time
frame is limited (the magic duration seems to be 12-weeks; perhaps the
drop-out rate increases after that and they lose statistical power).

Then's there epidemiological studies. A recently published study (this
week, actually) reported that elderly people partaking in aerobic
exercise (years-decades) had less 'stiffening' of the cardiac wall
(muscle) than their sedentary cohorts. But there was no mention of
resistance exercise history. The problems with a similar examination
of older folks who have lifted weights (documented) for similar long
periods of time is 1) smaller population of subjects (losing
statistical power), and 2) questionable supplement/enhancement history
(which will affect cardiac morphology).

There is no debate that aerobic and anaerobic have differing and even
contrasting effects in skeletal muscle physiology. But the dichotomy
increases when the issue considers cardiac physiology and morphology.
Weight training can pump more blood volume, but not to the same extent
and duration that aerobic activity can and have equal effects on the
heart muscle. Unless the weight training is performed as circuit
training with near non-existant rest periods between sets. One study
did examine this and, if I recall (I only glimpsed through the paper
quickly), the pulmonary effects were nearly identical to those seen in
another group performing moderate intensity traditional cardio
exercise. The difference was that the circuit training group had
strength increases in addition to cardiorespiratory improvements. (I
think this was also a recent study, maybe even epublished; don't
recall).

>> For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd
>> have to lift 100kg once every two seconds to put out 300W
>> (guessing height weight gains). That's a pretty modest
>> output for cardio work.
>>
>> But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't have
>> any, but I'm not that sure you really need cardio work.
>> OTOH, I don't see why people get so upset at the idea of
>> spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing cardio.
>
>You can if you want, but I'd much rather not, and certainly have
>no such intention based on the current state of research.

I don't want to ether, but the research has convinced me that I
should, for a number of reasons.


Beelzibub

"Modern man must rediscover a deeper source of his own spiritual life. To do this,he is obligated
to struggle with evil, to confront his own shadow, to integrate the devil."
- Carl Jung

Peter Allen
October 3rd 04, 12:39 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> > IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends
> > on a lot of stuff, not just how hard you're working. You can
> > get your heart rate up quite a bit just by tensing up your
> > muscles for twenty seconds, and neither of us thinks that's
> > meaningful work. The point is how hard your body has to work
> > to get enough oxygen into your system and to the muscles -
> > and unless you do a very, very odd weight program, you will
> > not be putting out as much power, on average, as you do when
> > doing proper cardio. Therefore your body will have to move
> > less oxygen around.
>
> Who says that's the relevant measure? As far I can tell,
> clinical studies have shown that health benefits (reduction of
> health risks) correlate roughly with duration/elevation of HR in
> exercise. The relative effects of cardio and weight training
> haven't been elucidated to any meaningful extent.

<shrug> Does anyone here happen to know of any such studies?
In any case, there is definitely _something_ different going on with
weightlifting getting your HR up and aerobic work getting your HR up - doing
lots of the former doesn't make you good at aerobic work, doing lots of the
latter does. Which is, OK, obvious.

> > For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd
> > have to lift 100kg once every two seconds to put out 300W
> > (guessing height weight gains). That's a pretty modest
> > output for cardio work.
> >
> > But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't have
> > any, but I'm not that sure you really need cardio work.
> > OTOH, I don't see why people get so upset at the idea of
> > spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing cardio.
>
> You can if you want, but I'd much rather not, and certainly have
> no such intention based on the current state of research.

As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of weights work to
support my rowing... :-)

Peter

elzinator
October 3rd 04, 02:32 PM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:39:19 +0100, Peter Allen wrote:
>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> > IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends
>> > on a lot of stuff, not just how hard you're working. You can
>> > get your heart rate up quite a bit just by tensing up your
>> > muscles for twenty seconds, and neither of us thinks that's
>> > meaningful work. The point is how hard your body has to work
>> > to get enough oxygen into your system and to the muscles -
>> > and unless you do a very, very odd weight program, you will
>> > not be putting out as much power, on average, as you do when
>> > doing proper cardio. Therefore your body will have to move
>> > less oxygen around.
>>
>> Who says that's the relevant measure? As far I can tell,
>> clinical studies have shown that health benefits (reduction of
>> health risks) correlate roughly with duration/elevation of HR in
>> exercise. The relative effects of cardio and weight training
>> haven't been elucidated to any meaningful extent.
>
><shrug> Does anyone here happen to know of any such studies?

Search PubMed. I know there are, but I can't just whip them off the
top of my head.

>In any case, there is definitely _something_ different going on with
>weightlifting getting your HR up and aerobic work getting your HR up - doing
>lots of the former doesn't make you good at aerobic work, doing lots of the
>latter does. Which is, OK, obvious.

That depends on what your goal is.

>> > For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd
>> > have to lift 100kg once every two seconds to put out 300W
>> > (guessing height weight gains). That's a pretty modest
>> > output for cardio work.
>> >
>> > But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't have
>> > any, but I'm not that sure you really need cardio work.
>> > OTOH, I don't see why people get so upset at the idea of
>> > spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing cardio.
>>
>> You can if you want, but I'd much rather not, and certainly have
>> no such intention based on the current state of research.
>
>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of weights work to
>support my rowing... :-)

So you need to train both components.

You do crew?

Beelzibub

"Modern man must rediscover a deeper source of his own spiritual life. To do this,he is obligated
to struggle with evil, to confront his own shadow, to integrate the devil."
- Carl Jung

Wayne S. Hill
October 3rd 04, 05:24 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2004 02:24:12 GMT, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>>> <snip kromagnon>
>>>> On what do you base this statement? What you call common
>>>> sense doesn't count. How do you know, for example, that
>>>> a proper weight training protocol, particularly one that
>>>> minimizes rest time, doesn't have similar benefits to
>>>> what is commonly considered cardio?
>>>
>>> IMO, heart rate is a bit of a red herring here: HR depends
>>> on a lot of stuff, not just how hard you're working. You
>>> can get your heart rate up quite a bit just by tensing up
>>> your muscles for twenty seconds, and neither of us thinks
>>> that's meaningful work. The point is how hard your body
>>> has to work to get enough oxygen into your system and to
>>> the muscles - and unless you do a very, very odd weight
>>> program, you will not be putting out as much power, on
>>> average, as you do when doing proper cardio. Therefore
>>> your body will have to move less oxygen around.
>>
>>Who says that's the relevant measure? As far I can tell,
>>clinical studies have shown that health benefits (reduction
>>of health risks) correlate roughly with duration/elevation
>>of HR in exercise. The relative effects of cardio and
>>weight training haven't been elucidated to any meaningful
>>extent.
>
> Well, yes and no.
> Several recent studies have examined the relative effects of
> aerobic to anaerobic exercise (cardio and resistance
> exercise). But there are several limitations: Generally, the
> studies compare outcomes in the context of only one or two
> parameters. The methodologies (exercise and intervention
> vary widely, as well as the subject cohorts. And the time
> frame is limited (the magic duration seems to be 12-weeks;
> perhaps the drop-out rate increases after that and they lose
> statistical power).
>
> Then's there epidemiological studies. A recently published
> study (this week, actually) reported that elderly people
> partaking in aerobic exercise (years-decades) had less
> 'stiffening' of the cardiac wall (muscle) than their
> sedentary cohorts. But there was no mention of resistance
> exercise history. The problems with a similar examination
> of older folks who have lifted weights (documented) for
> similar long periods of time is 1) smaller population of
> subjects (losing statistical power), and 2) questionable
> supplement/enhancement history (which will affect cardiac
> morphology).
>
> There is no debate that aerobic and anaerobic have differing
> and even contrasting effects in skeletal muscle physiology.
> But the dichotomy increases when the issue considers cardiac
> physiology and morphology. Weight training can pump more
> blood volume, but not to the same extent and duration that
> aerobic activity can and have equal effects on the heart
> muscle. Unless the weight training is performed as circuit
> training with near non-existant rest periods between sets.

Be careful here, because this is a function of the level of
training of the subjects. Most subjects in a 12-week program
aren't handling large enough weights to maintain a high heart
rate without circuit training. My wife and I used to go to the
gym together, and she just couldn't understand why I would get
so beat from it. Then I pointed out that my power output was
more than twice hers. Simply limiting the time between sets is
enough for me to maintain a HR above 120 (with quite a few
spikes to 160) for the duration of a workout.

> One study did examine this and, if I recall (I only glimpsed
> through the paper quickly), the pulmonary effects were
> nearly identical to those seen in another group performing
> moderate intensity traditional cardio exercise. The
> difference was that the circuit training group had strength
> increases in addition to cardiorespiratory improvements. (I
> think this was also a recent study, maybe even epublished;
> don't recall).

All of which is consistent with my viewpoint.

>>> For example, if you are, say, doing deadlifts, then you'd
>>> have to lift 100kg once every two seconds to put out 300W
>>> (guessing height weight gains). That's a pretty modest
>>> output for cardio work.
>>>
>>> But, since you'll no doubt ask for references - I don't
>>> have any, but I'm not that sure you really need cardio
>>> work. OTOH, I don't see why people get so upset at the
>>> idea of spending maybe an hour and a half a week doing
>>> cardio.
>>
>>You can if you want, but I'd much rather not, and certainly
>>have no such intention based on the current state of
>>research.
>
> I don't want to ether, but the research has convinced me
> that I should, for a number of reasons.

We all make our choices. In my case, heart attack and stroke
don't run in either side of my family, and my health risk
factors look pretty good otherwise. I am generally active and
lift and throw things much more than most. I don't see the
point of diverting effort to an activity that doesn't interest
me and which I have no particular reason to believe will help
me. I similarly don't see the point of telling other people
that they should/must do so.

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
October 3rd 04, 05:26 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>
> Peter

Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.

--
-Wayne

Lyle McDonald
October 3rd 04, 06:50 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:

> Peter Allen wrote:
>
>
>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>>
>>Peter
>
>
> Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.

It's like all of those Olympic lifters who are dropping dead from
cardiac complications from doing no cardio.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
October 3rd 04, 06:52 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:

> Be careful here, because this is a function of the level of
> training of the subjects. Most subjects in a 12-week program
> aren't handling large enough weights to maintain a high heart
> rate without circuit training. My wife and I used to go to the
> gym together, and she just couldn't understand why I would get
> so beat from it. Then I pointed out that my power output was
> more than twice hers. Simply limiting the time between sets is
> enough for me to maintain a HR above 120 (with quite a few
> spikes to 160) for the duration of a workout.

But you have to ask if the average person is going to be able to
maintain that type of workload. Are they using heavy enough loads
during the workout and using a short enough rest to generate that type
of training effect? My general feeling would be no.

Not that such can't be worked up to, mind you.

Meaning, for the average person, able to maintain the average workload
in the weight room, cardio may very well have additional/synergistic
benefits in terms of CV health, etc.

For someone in Wayne's situation, probably not.

Meaning: it depends.

Lyle

Peter Allen
October 3rd 04, 07:06 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:39:19 +0100, Peter Allen wrote:
> >In any case, there is definitely _something_ different going on with
> >weightlifting getting your HR up and aerobic work getting your HR up -
doing
> >lots of the former doesn't make you good at aerobic work, doing lots of
the
> >latter does. Which is, OK, obvious.
>
> That depends on what your goal is.

I was trying to say they do different things, not 'this is better'...

> >
> >As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of weights work to
> >support my rowing... :-)
>
> So you need to train both components.
>
> You do crew?

Yes - currently I'm fairly decent physiologically, but a bit dodgy
technically.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/culrc/pictures/hbr/2004/granta_8.jpg

is a picture of me + rest of boat last March; I'm at 3, so 3rd furthest from
the camera. We lost, narrowly.

Peter

Peter Allen
October 3rd 04, 07:10 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> > weights work to support my rowing... :-)
> >
> > Peter
>
> Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.

:-)

Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000 calories a day or
so (not easy, especially when you're trying to fit in work as well and avoid
loads of sugar). Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.

Anyway, I am a former collegiate rower now, just former only refers to
collegiate (at least until I get a PhD sorted out).

Peter

Lyle McDonald
October 3rd 04, 09:06 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
>>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>>>
>>>Peter
>>
>>Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.
>
>
> :-)
>
> Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000 calories a day or
> so (not easy, especially when you're trying to fit in work as well and avoid
> loads of sugar). Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.

<Sarcasm>
Yeah, all that muscle turns to fat.
</sarcasm>

Lyle

Wayne S. Hill
October 3rd 04, 10:20 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>> > As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
>> > weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like
>> flies.
>
>:-)
>
> Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000
> calories a day or so (not easy, especially when you're
> trying to fit in work as well and avoid loads of sugar).
> Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.

Former crew members are notorious for giving up athletics after
college. There isn't much about crew that is fun enough that
you still want to do it after school, plus the logistical issue
of having to live in a suitable place.

> Anyway, I am a former collegiate rower now, just former only
> refers to collegiate (at least until I get a PhD sorted
> out).

Oops, sorry. You're doomed nonetheless.

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
October 3rd 04, 10:34 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
>> Be careful here, because this is a function of the level of
>> training of the subjects. Most subjects in a 12-week
>> program aren't handling large enough weights to maintain a
>> high heart rate without circuit training. My wife and I
>> used to go to the gym together, and she just couldn't
>> understand why I would get so beat from it. Then I pointed
>> out that my power output was more than twice hers. Simply
>> limiting the time between sets is enough for me to maintain
>> a HR above 120 (with quite a few spikes to 160) for the
>> duration of a workout.
>
> But you have to ask if the average person is going to be
> able to maintain that type of workload. Are they using
> heavy enough loads during the workout and using a short
> enough rest to generate that type of training effect? My
> general feeling would be no.

I think you're right, and consequently the effects on health risk
aren't likely to be studied.

--
-Wayne

Art S
October 3rd 04, 10:38 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Peter Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> >>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
> >>>
> >>>Peter
> >>
> >>Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.
> >
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000 calories a day or
> > so (not easy, especially when you're trying to fit in work as well and avoid
> > loads of sugar). Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> > eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
>
> <Sarcasm>
> Yeah, all that muscle turns to fat.
> </sarcasm>
>
> Lyle
>

?

It is the 5,000 calories per day that turns to fat. I would expect you to
realize that's what he meant. Why the remark?

Art

Lyle McDonald
October 3rd 04, 11:10 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:

> Peter Allen wrote:
>
>
>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>>
>>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
>>>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>
>>>Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like
>>>flies.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000
>>calories a day or so (not easy, especially when you're
>>trying to fit in work as well and avoid loads of sugar).
>>Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
>>eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
>
>
> Former crew members are notorious for giving up athletics after
> college. There isn't much about crew that is fun enough that
> you still want to do it after school, plus the logistical issue
> of having to live in a suitable place.

I would be surprised if this were specific to crew. Many collegiate
athletes give up training completely once their competitive days are
over. Without that specific goal to work towards, they just don't bother.

Add to that the fact that many sports don't lend themselves to
recreational involvement after college.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
October 3rd 04, 11:11 PM
Art S wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
>>>>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.
>>>
>>>
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000 calories a day or
>>>so (not easy, especially when you're trying to fit in work as well and avoid
>>>loads of sugar). Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
>>>eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
>>
>><Sarcasm>
>>Yeah, all that muscle turns to fat.
>></sarcasm>
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>
>
> ?
>
> It is the 5,000 calories per day that turns to fat. I would expect you to
> realize that's what he meant. Why the remark?

I could have sworn I put 'sarcasm' tags around that remark.

Oh wait....

I'll let someone else explain it.

Lyle

Art S
October 3rd 04, 11:56 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Art S wrote:
>
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Peter Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Peter Allen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> >>>>>weights work to support my rowing... :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Peter
> >>>>
> >>>>Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like flies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>:-)
> >>>
> >>>Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000 calories a day or
> >>>so (not easy, especially when you're trying to fit in work as well and avoid
> >>>loads of sugar). Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> >>>eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
> >>
> >><Sarcasm>
> >>Yeah, all that muscle turns to fat.
> >></sarcasm>
> >>
> >>Lyle
> >>
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> > It is the 5,000 calories per day that turns to fat. I would expect you to
> > realize that's what he meant. Why the remark?
>
> I could have sworn I put 'sarcasm' tags around that remark.
>
> Oh wait....
>
> I'll let someone else explain it.
>
> Lyle
>

Sorry - it would appear that my reading comprehension isn't doing
so well at the moment. I thought you were making a sarcastic
comment appearing to agree with him in order to register your
disagreement. Which didn't make any sense to me.

Art

Peter Allen
October 4th 04, 09:52 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> >> Peter Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> > As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> >> > weights work to support my rowing... :-)
> >> >
> >> > Peter
> >>
> >> Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like
> >> flies.
> >
> >:-)
> >
> > Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000
> > calories a day or so (not easy, especially when you're
> > trying to fit in work as well and avoid loads of sugar).
> > Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> > eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
>
> Former crew members are notorious for giving up athletics after
> college. There isn't much about crew that is fun enough that
> you still want to do it after school, plus the logistical issue
> of having to live in a suitable place.

What is there about lifting weights that makes it fun to do after college?

As far as I can see, the only difference is that you get a lot of rowers
who're basically interested in an excuse to get ****ed without actually
joining a drinking society. As I wasn't that sort of rower anyway...

Besides, the UK is much better than the US for rowing locations - most
places have some sort of club; the places I would want to do a PhD at
certainly do, and as I'm looking to get a software type job long term, I'd
have to look hard to find a job that wasn't near a rowing club.

Peter

Keith Hobman
October 4th 04, 09:59 PM
In article >, "Peter Allen"
> wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Allen wrote:
> >
> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> > >> Peter Allen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > As I'm here on the basis that I do a reasonable amount of
> > >> > weights work to support my rowing... :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Peter
> > >>
> > >> Watch out: former collegiate rowers tend to drop like
> > >> flies.
> > >
> > >:-)
> > >
> > > Well, you spend a few years working hard on eating 5,000
> > > calories a day or so (not easy, especially when you're
> > > trying to fit in work as well and avoid loads of sugar).
> > > Then if you pack it in and get a sit-down job, but continue
> > > eating, you're going to be very, very fat very fast.
> >
> > Former crew members are notorious for giving up athletics after
> > college. There isn't much about crew that is fun enough that
> > you still want to do it after school, plus the logistical issue
> > of having to live in a suitable place.
>
> What is there about lifting weights that makes it fun to do after college?
>
> As far as I can see, the only difference is that you get a lot of rowers
> who're basically interested in an excuse to get ****ed without actually
> joining a drinking society. As I wasn't that sort of rower anyway...
>
> Besides, the UK is much better than the US for rowing locations - most
> places have some sort of club; the places I would want to do a PhD at
> certainly do, and as I'm looking to get a software type job long term, I'd
> have to look hard to find a job that wasn't near a rowing club.

I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club had
three people on various crews in the olympics.

We do tend to have more canoeists and kayakers than rowers tho...

Lee Michaels
October 4th 04, 10:03 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>
> I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
> club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club had
> three people on various crews in the olympics.
>
Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??

Or do they just abstain during the cold months??

Keith Hobman
October 4th 04, 10:14 PM
In article <[email protected]_s03>, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote
> >
> > I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
> > club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club had
> > three people on various crews in the olympics.
> >
> Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>
> Or do they just abstain during the cold months??

They have an indoor facility as well as the river. Its not great, but they
bascially are off the water from November till March.

So they have some sort of flow pool and various machines. I don't think
the rowers do anything except machines and dryland training.

Peter Allen
October 4th 04, 10:51 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...
>
> "Keith Hobman" > wrote
> >
> > I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
> > club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
had
> > three people on various crews in the olympics.
> >
> Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>
> Or do they just abstain during the cold months??

It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean, given
recent Canadian boats...)

But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over, which
is a good thing about the UK - rivers don't freeze often or for long. In
almost any other weather, you can row; you're working hard enough you don't
really get cold, most of the time.

Peter

Lyle McDonald
October 4th 04, 11:03 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s03...
>
>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>>
>>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
>>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
>
> had
>
>>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
>>>
>>
>>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>>
>>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
>
>
> It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
> really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean, given
> recent Canadian boats...)
>
> But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,

put blades on the bottom of the boat.
duh.

Lyle

Lee Michaels
October 4th 04, 11:36 PM
"Lyle McDonald" wrote
>
> > "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]_s03...
> >
> >>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
> >>
> >>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one
rowing
> >>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
> >
> > had
> >
> >>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
> >>
> >>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
> >
> >
> > It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
> > really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean,
given
> > recent Canadian boats...)
> >
> > But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,
>
> put blades on the bottom of the boat.
> duh.
>
And/or get Lyle to push you in his monster skates.

How's that for resistance training?

Ice boat push (or pull) wind sprints.

elzinator
October 5th 04, 03:39 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:03:12 -0600, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>Peter Allen wrote:
>
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]_s03...
>>
>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>>>
>>>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one rowing
>>>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
>>
>> had
>>
>>>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>>>
>>>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
>>
>>
>> It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
>> really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean, given
>> recent Canadian boats...)
>>
>> But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,
>
>put blades on the bottom of the boat.
>duh.

This is a sport on the Maine lakes.
Not crew boats, but small boats with blades on the bottom and sails on
top. They are wicked awesome.

Gotta watch out for the ice fishing houses, though.,..




Beelzibub

"Modern man must rediscover a deeper source of his own spiritual life. To do this,he is obligated
to struggle with evil, to confront his own shadow, to integrate the devil."
- Carl Jung

Lyle McDonald
October 5th 04, 05:30 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lyle McDonald" wrote
>
>>>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]_s03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one
>
> rowing
>
>>>>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
>>>
>>>had
>>>
>>>
>>>>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>>>>
>>>>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
>>>
>>>
>>>It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
>>>really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean,
>
> given
>
>>>recent Canadian boats...)
>>>
>>>But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,
>>
>>put blades on the bottom of the boat.
>>duh.
>>
>
> And/or get Lyle to push you in his monster skates.
>
> How's that for resistance training?
>
> Ice boat push (or pull) wind sprints.

fAlls under the heading of specific strength training, competition
movement against extra resistance.

I'm there.

Lyle

aj
October 5th 04, 06:15 PM
On 2004-10-05, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Lyle McDonald" wrote
>>
>>>>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]_s03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one
>>
>> rowing
>>
>>>>>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
>>>>
>>>>had
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>>>>>
>>>>>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
>>>>really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean,
>>
>> given
>>
>>>>recent Canadian boats...)
>>>>
>>>>But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,
>>>
>>>put blades on the bottom of the boat.
>>>duh.
>>>
>>
>> And/or get Lyle to push you in his monster skates.
>>
>> How's that for resistance training?
>>
>> Ice boat push (or pull) wind sprints.
>
> fAlls under the heading of specific strength training, competition
> movement against extra resistance.
>
> I'm there.
>
> Lyle

I thought you didn't do North.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Lyle McDonald
October 5th 04, 06:47 PM
aj wrote:
> On 2004-10-05, Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>>Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>>"Lyle McDonald" wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]_s03...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know of any city in Canada that doesn't have at least one
>>>
>>>rowing
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>club. We have one here and we are hardly a major city. OTOH - our club
>>>>>
>>>>>had
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>three people on various crews in the olympics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do these folks have to do anything different when it gets really cold??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or do they just abstain during the cold months??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called a rowing machine. It is thoroughly unpleasant, and doesn't
>>>>>really help technique. (I could claim it teaches excessive back lean,
>>>
>>>given
>>>
>>>
>>>>>recent Canadian boats...)
>>>>>
>>>>>But there really isn't an option when the lake / river freezes over,
>>>>
>>>>put blades on the bottom of the boat.
>>>>duh.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And/or get Lyle to push you in his monster skates.
>>>
>>>How's that for resistance training?
>>>
>>>Ice boat push (or pull) wind sprints.
>>
>>fAlls under the heading of specific strength training, competition
>>movement against extra resistance.
>>
>>I'm there.
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> I thought you didn't do North.

they can bring the boat down to the oval and I'll tow it around.

Lyle

Axel of the North!
October 7th 04, 05:39 AM
On 3 Oct 2004 16:24:32 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>We all make our choices. In my case, heart attack and stroke
>don't run in either side of my family, and my health risk
>factors look pretty good otherwise. I am generally active and
>lift and throw things much more than most. I don't see the
>point of diverting effort to an activity that doesn't interest
>me and which I have no particular reason to believe will help
>me. I similarly don't see the point of telling other people
>that they should/must do so.
>
>--
>-Wayne

what about fartlekking? just give it a chance!

rick++
October 7th 04, 04:15 PM
Thats been the general wisdom since the late 1960s after various studies
like Cooper, Framingham, Harvard alumni ...

We were just noting the passing of some early gym founders like Gold and
Zinkin. That era emphasised strength training.

Wayne S. Hill
October 7th 04, 11:42 PM
Axel of the North! wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>
>>We all make our choices. In my case, heart attack and
>>stroke don't run in either side of my family, and my health
>>risk factors look pretty good otherwise. I am generally
>>active and lift and throw things much more than most. I
>>don't see the point of diverting effort to an activity that
>>doesn't interest me and which I have no particular reason to
>>believe will help me. I similarly don't see the point of
>>telling other people that they should/must do so.
>
> what about fartlekking? just give it a chance!

My idea of fartlek is tossing a caber in practice. Now THAT's
fun!

--
-Wayne

Geezer From The Freezer
October 8th 04, 10:43 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>
h near non-existant rest periods between sets.
>
> Be careful here, because this is a function of the level of
> training of the subjects. Most subjects in a 12-week program
> aren't handling large enough weights to maintain a high heart
> rate without circuit training. My wife and I used to go to the
> gym together, and she just couldn't understand why I would get
> so beat from it. Then I pointed out that my power output was
> more than twice hers. Simply limiting the time between sets is
> enough for me to maintain a HR above 120 (with quite a few
> spikes to 160) for the duration of a workout.

Are your lungs getting a good workout with just weights though?

Wayne S. Hill
October 8th 04, 01:25 PM
Geezer From The Freezer wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>>
>> Be careful here, because this is a function of the level of
>> training of the subjects. Most subjects in a 12-week
>> program aren't handling large enough weights to maintain a
>> high heart rate without circuit training. My wife and I
>> used to go to the gym together, and she just couldn't
>> understand why I would get so beat from it. Then I pointed
>> out that my power output was more than twice hers. Simply
>> limiting the time between sets is enough for me to maintain
>> a HR above 120 (with quite a few spikes to 160) for the
>> duration of a workout.
>
> Are your lungs getting a good workout with just weights
> though?

Of course. By the end of a heavy set, I'm breathing like a
freight train. For the most part, I'm breathing like I used to
in long-distance running.

--
-Wayne

Geezer From The Freezer
October 8th 04, 01:36 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

> Of course. By the end of a heavy set, I'm breathing like a
> freight train. For the most part, I'm breathing like I used to
> in long-distance running.
>
> --
> -Wayne

Actually same here :D just got back from intensive weight training and
I was f***** both breathing, sweating and aching. I wouldn't say it was
the same consistant lung work out as a run though.